Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1887-02-11

The State of Virginia, In 1871,
funded her te.bellum debt by
issuing new bonds, payable IN thir'
| ty- four years, for two-thirds OF the
old debt, and certificates OF indebt'
edness for the other one-third OF
the debt, which are known az West
Virginia certificates. The bonds OF
Virginia have attached to them
coupons which, by the law author
izlng their issue, are made recelva'
ble for all taxes due the state. The
coupons bear on their face this
statement: "The Supreme Court
of the United States has decided
that these bonds and coupons con-
stitute the contract of the state that
the coupons will be received tor
taxes, and that the state cannot re-
pudiate it's contract by refusing to
receive them" The Supreme Court
| has also decided that tender of a
coupon is equivalent to payment OF
the tax, and that a person who has
rendered coupons to pay for H.
cense tax is entitled to a license,
and, If such tender IS refused, can
90 on aud transact business just as
he had license. The Supreme
Court OF Virginia, on January 10Th
last, in the case of Jones, q drum
mer, convicted of selling goods
without a license, after tender of
coupons, decided that tender OF
coupons was not sufficient to pro-
tect a person from prosecution, I'M
| less the coupons had first been veri-
| fed by the verdict OF jury, as re-
Iquired by Virginia statute. Act
| ing on this last decision of the Su-
preme Court of Virginia, the Vir-
ginia authorities are arresting and
indicting all persons trading with
out license, whether they have ten
dered coupons or not. Richard
Lee Fitzgerald, representing Aus
tin, Fields & Co., of Philadelphia,
lC. P. Sherwood, representing the
Spencer Optical Manufacturing
Company, of New York, we're ar
rested-Fitzgersld IN Pulaski coun'
| ty, and Sherwood in Richmond
| and we're committed to Jail. There
| upon Mr.. w. L. Royal, counsel for
the English bOndholders, immedl-
ately sued out writs OF habeas cor
pus, and the parties were produced
before Judge Bond yesterday, and
the question whether the decision
of the Supreme Court of Virginia or
the Supreme Court of the United
States prevails, was submitted to
him. The case was argued by MIR.
Royal and Gen. Bradley I. John
son for the petitioners, and Attor-
ney General Ayres, of Virginia, for
the respondent. Judge Bond pre-
pared and submitted the following
Iopinion
awe are of the opinion that the
revenue laws under which this par
| ty is held, which provides for the
raising of revenue in Virginia, con
stitute one law, though they have
been enacted in separate chapters
and at different times; and we are
OF opinion that the act of the legis-
lature of Virginia, passed 1S95-S6,
chapter AIS, which requires parties
who desire to sell by sample in that
state, and who tender coupons OF
the bonds of the state in payment
of license so to sell, to deliver such
coupons to the state officers for
verlfcation, and forblds them to
exercise that business until the
same are verified, while parties who
pay their license fees in money are
. allowed 10 proceed at once in the
b conduct OF their business, 10 an M
p constitutional act, because it i'm.
D pairs the obligation Of the contract
. made by Virginia with the coupon.
a holder, which was that the coupons
. would be received in payment OF
all public dues and taxes. This
, statute, in effect, adds to the con-
tract the words, after they are
VERIFIED which is a new condition
altogether, that greatly impairs the
, value of the coupon. Virginia has
by law made the coupons as muct
of legal tender for public dues and
taxes as IS a greenback, and 1t II
not necessary to show what an im
|. pairment it would be to the value
of the latter, did It's genuine char
3 acter have to be proved every tim'
it is offered in payment of a debt
"The petition in this case set'
forth In detail the laws unde
which the petitioner is detained
and the facts which caused his ar
rest and imprisonment. These al
legations Of the petition are no
traversed or denied, and must b
taken as true. Taking them to b
true, it fully appears, as we think
" that tho petitioner is held in viola
ton of the Constitution of tn
l United States. The case must b
considered, the respondent not de
b nying the allegations of the pet
ton, as II those alleged facts wei
10 the return, and that the part
IT was held for the reasons and und'
Of the circumstances alleged, as we
>. IN the petition as in the retur
- IL -. -. olr.lnd 10 Il